Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Matthew Chivvis spoke to Law360 about winning a victory for client Evolve Biosystems, Inc. in its patent infringement suit against Abbott Laboratories.

Abbott Can’t Ax False Ad Attack in Probiotic IP Row

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Matthew Chivvis spoke to Law360 about winning a victory for client Evolve Biosystems, Inc. in its patent infringement suit against Abbott Laboratories.As part of the suit, Evolve filed false advertising and unfair competition claims against Abbott, which Abbott sought to dismiss. On March 22, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee agreed with Evolve’s argument against Abbott, stating that Evolve’s allegations are sufficient enough to support its claim that Abbott’s product label “constitutes commercial advertising or promotion,” and denying Abbot’s motion.Matthew said that “the court’s ruling confirms that defendant’s unsupported claims of product superiority do not qualify as mere puffery and that they can support causes of action for false advertising.”Read the <a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt839bd0ca7d589d52/627321d6deee7329767e7a06/220322-abbott-cant-ax-ad-attack.pdf">full article</a>.